Why Office 2010 won’t support Windows XP 64-bit

When the system requirements for Microsoft Office 2010 were first posted, we noticed that Windows XP 64-bit was mysteriously absent. We contacted Microsoft, and the company explained that while deciding on which versions of Windows to support in the next release of Office, it weighed the user experience behind the versions against broadly dropping support.

"For the Microsoft Office 2010 release, we will not support Windows XP 64-bit," a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed with Ars. Upon further inspection, we also noticed Windows Server 2003 support was missing. "For the best productivity and user experience, the benefits of 64-bit computing with Office 2010 is best experienced by utilizing the newly introduced 64-bit version of Office 2010 with Windows 7 (64-bit) or Windows Vista (64-bit) version." In short, Microsoft does not think the experience will be good enough on its previous operating systems.

For the sake of comparison, here are the supported versions of Windows for Office 2010 and its two predecessors (for newer releases of Windows, older versions of Office may require service packs to work):

Office 2007: Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2. Office 2007 is a 32-bit application that will run on a 64-bit version of Windows, but there may be some feature limitations.

While this is the first time the software giant is releasing 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Office, and on one DVD no less, it's a bit disappointing that neither of them will work on Windows XP 64-bit or Windows Server 2003.

Frankly, we believe Microsoft would kill off Windows XP 32-bit support for Office 2010, which is scheduled for release in June 2010, if it could. Alas, Windows XP 32-bit is still the world's most popular operating system, so the software giant is grudgingly porting everything it needs to make Office 2010 work on the eight-year-old OS.

"For the Microsoft Office 2010 release, we will not support Windows XP 64-bit," a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed with Ars. Upon further inspection, we also noticed Windows Server 2003 support was missing.

XP x64 IS basically the client version of Server 2003 x64 and is based on the same codebase.BTW, references to "XP 64-bit" or "XP64" are quite ambiguous, because before Windows was ported to x64, it referred to the Itanium version.

This does affect Terminal Server users who may want the latest version of Office on Win2003 Server and not have to upgrade the entire server to get it. Guess they will not be buying the latest Office then.

It's not really that surprising. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not in providing the best experience for the user. The best way to make money is to continue to sell new products. If they can promote the need for users to upgrade at additional cost, the more money they make. Providing a somewhat adequate experience for the user is just a byproduct of their need to make money. Sure I might be sounding like RMS, but lets not lose sight of the primary drive and reason for a business.

Originally posted by orangejulius:This does affect Terminal Server users who may want the latest version of Office on Win2003 Server and not have to upgrade the entire server to get it. Guess they will not be buying the latest Office then.

This. I would have expected them to drop support for XP and keep it for 2003, just for Terminal Services (instead of what they've done). We can't update our TS servers from 2003 anytime soon due to budget cuts and old applications, but we would if we could. Of course, if we can't afford new server licenses, we sure as heck can't afford a bunch of new Office 2010 licenses, which is sort of the point.

At this point, keeping support for XP at all, but not 2003, is just a bit odd.

So does not supported mean it won't work at all or just that Microsoft won't be warranting or patching for Windows x64? What about Windows 2003 R2 x64? It's not explicitly stated either way whether it's support or unsupported, whereas for XP they say 32-bit only. Of course, seeing the shaded codebase, Windows 2003 R2 x64 support is unlikely.

I intensely dislike Microsoft for a variety of reasons but this is a completely reasonable move. I'm surprised they're even supporting 32bit XP. Few, if any, of Microsoft's competitors offer this degree of backwards compatibility. Try running iLife 09 on OSX 10.2 or OpenOffice 3 on a Linux distro from 2001. Not gonna work. Not even close. You could probably do the same test using 2005 versions and get the same level of incompatibility. I'm sure someone's going to chim in with "but, but but I could download Ubuntu 11.2 Cryptic Cat edition and run OpenOffice 3 for free" and that's a valid point insofar as you knew what you were getting. Linux is free, Windows is not. If anyone chooses to build on top of a commercial platform for home or business use they have to accept the costs associated with it.

Originally posted by Messy:uhhh, show of hands - people who use server 2003 as a desktop OS?

I put Server 2003 on my Eee 701. It was the only legal version of Windows I had at hand.

Really? Do you know how much you spent on that copy of Server 2003? You could have bought a new Eee for that, pre-loaded with XP.

Also... Server 2003 on an Eee? You get what you bloody deserve. I cannot think of any half decent reason to run a server OS on a netbook, and moreover, I can't think of any reason why you'd expect the slightest amount of support.

Originally posted by adderx99:It's not really that surprising. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not in providing the best experience for the user. The best way to make money is to continue to sell new products. If they can promote the need for users to upgrade at additional cost, the more money they make. Providing a somewhat adequate experience for the user is just a byproduct of their need to make money. Sure I might be sounding like RMS, but lets not lose sight of the primary drive and reason for a business.

What? If there are five people out there hoping to run Office 2010 on Server 2003 or XP64, I'd be floored. As a money-making exercise, they'd be much better placed to make it stop running on XP 32-bit and try and force people to upgrade their OS. Of course, they wouldn't do that, whatever little money they made in the short term would be lost not long after as every business on the planet got very angry at them.

I've had to install Outlook on Server 2003. Does that count? It was necessary because the program we used needed it in order to perform Exchange functions. I thought it was pretty bad for an Enterprise level program.

Btw this article doesn't state why it doesn't support, only states what we already knew so maybe the title should be changed to remove "Why". XP 64 was anyways the bastard stepchild that in spite of being released in April 2005 never got the support it deserved even at RTM. Btw, if they can support Office 2007 in WoW64 mode on XP 64, why not 32-bit Office 2010 on XP 64?

While this is the first time the software giant is releasing 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Office, and on one DVD no less, it's a bit disappointing that neither of them will work on Windows XP 64-bit or Windows Server 2003

What is Microsoft doing special with Office 2k10 that means it won't work under WOW64 in XP64?

Originally posted by Emon:Wait... they aren't supporting it or it doesn't run at all? It makes COMPLETELY sense to not care about XP 64 at all. But will it still run, it just isn't supported?

Doesn't install at all. I installed XP64 again just to compare performance with Windows 7. I also thought it would be a good chance to test the Office 2010 beta without risk to my Office 2007 install. The installer told me "Upgrade to Vista 64 or Windows 7 64"

For all you folks who are claiming that no one runs Office on Windows Server 2003, you are forgetting a very large segment of users that are on Terminal Servers..

And since shared environments tend to be pretty complicated, forcing a upgrade like this is problematic. App X won't run on Windows Server 2008, but now Office 2010 requires it.. Well, looks like we're staying with Office 2007.

Sharepoint..ugh...MS should be beaten soundly for producing this product. Yet another wonderful example of product lock-in. only IE will work properly with sharepoint not opera nor Firefox, even thought sharepoint creates html, there's some blasted code in it that prevents other browsers from displaying the sites properly.

Originally posted by SleepDirt:I'm surprised they're even supporting 32bit XP. Few, if any, of Microsoft's competitors offer this degree of backwards compatibility.

Uh, maybe because the majority of PCs in the world at the moment are running Windows XP? Yeah, it may be years old, but it works and works well and that's why it's stayed around so long and people like it.

It is more than time that Microsoft cut the compatibility cords especially with Windows XP. If Apple users and Linux users can accept the harsh reality that software has to move forward, so can Windows users. The problem is that Microsoft has to make what's replacing so compelling that you won't even miss the previous version.

The problem is that MS needs to face reality. I.E. is bleeding market-share and needs to adapt Share-point to other browsers. Even I have finally switched off IE and changed to Firefox 3.5 because the difference is night and day.

Honestly, I wish they would have told XP 32 bit users, "I'm sorry but the new Office is Vista and 7 only. If you want the new version, upgrade."

OpenOffice.org is an okay alternative, but there's one problem. There's only one Office, Microsoft Office. Somethings are worth paying for. Office 2010 will definitely be one of them.

Originally posted by hmtk:TS on W2K3 seems the only serious problem. OTOH it appears to run on W2K3 R2. If you happen to have an app that does not run on W2K3 R2 TS, you seem to be stuck with Office 2007.

Well if it runs on 2003R2 but not 2003 then a slight modifcation in the installer would fix it.....not that it would be supported.

Originally posted by Messy:uhhh, show of hands - people who use server 2003 as a desktop OS?

if i found Office on server 2003 on a machine actually being used a server, i'd have to kick someone in the head.

Some time back, I administered a Windows 2000 Server machine that required Office 2000 to be installed to support document generation (via a website and templates) for legal purposes (digital signatures). Granted, not ALL of Office was installed, but much was; for the few people who needed the automated document generation capabilities, I had to manually log on to the server as a true user account for them, configure Office to have their name and initials, and have their web account map to the true user account.

Not what you meant, but the automated template mechanisms required Office to be installed.

i don’t think that many people are going to cry about XPx64 or SERVER 2003 not being supported.

quote:

uhhh, show of hands - people who use server 2003 as a desktop OS?

This is shortsighted. I nearly had a heart attack reading this headline. Our Citrix server farm is Server 2003 and we have plenty of thin clients running office 2003 off it now and planning on moving to 2010. Luckily the servers are R2. Phew!

Originally posted by XavierItzmann:Me, I'm still using Office 2004, and don't see myself upgrading anytime soon, though I could for free at any time if I wanted to, as I have available licenses of Office 2008 laying around the house.

I have used Office 2003 and 2007, have never used 2004. Is the version there? Another good option is Open office from SUN:0